A federal court recently reaffirmed its prior ruling that a plaintiff's expert failed to establish causation in a suit alleging increased risk of cancer from radioactive scale deposited inside pipes. See Hill v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 11-2786 (E.D. La. 4/30/13).
Plaintiff worked at Tuboscope Vetco International. He alleged he was exposed to radioactive scale (naturally occuring radioactive materials or "NORM") when he cleaned pipes at work. Hill sued Shell Oil Co. and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. alleging that these companies sent used pipes containing radioactive scale to Tuboscope to be processed and that he was exposed to the radioactive scale in these pipes.
Earlier this year, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Hill could not prove that he was exposed to radiation attributable to Shell or Chevron. A fundamental cause in fact issue. His evidence only supported general inferences about radiation at Tuboscope but nothing that showed (1) he actually cleaned used pipe containing scale with NORM or (2) that these pipes were attributable to Shell or Chevron. Hill's evidence required an impermissible chain of speculation to find that he was exposed to radiation in these defendants' pipes.
Plaintiff then moved to alter and amend the summary judgment arguing that the court should amend or reconsider its judgment because of new evidence. The court concluded that the new evidence, largely depositions taken after the motion was pending but before it was ruled on, was not grounds for altering the court's judgment. Defendants argued that these depositions were not the proper basis for a Rule 59(e) motion to amend because the evidence was available before the judgment issued. See Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-864 (5th Cir. 2003). Hill deposed these witnesses before the court issued its judgment, and he apparently made no attempt to supplement the record. Accordingly, this evidence was not "newly discovered." See Russ v. Int'l Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 1991).
Even if this evidence was considered, however, the court noted that plaintiff's motion still would fail. For example, one expert testimony did not establish that Hill was exposed to radioactive scale attributable to Shell and Chevron. No party disputed that new pipe does not have scale, and not all used pipe has scale. Further, not all used pipe with scale contains NORM. The later expert's calculation of the average radiation dose of pipes that do have scale containing NORM does not provide any proof that Hill was actually exposed to (1) used pipes that have scale containing NORM or (2) that these pipes were attributable to defendants. Accordingly, this kind of "new" testimony was irrelevant to proving Hill's exposure to NORM attributable to Shell and Chevron. The evidence did not show that Hill handled defendants' NORM-containing pipes and did not create an issue of material fact. Motion denied.